EIT: Kansallisen tuomioistuimen ensisijaisesti tulkittava reformatio in peius-kieltoa; KKO:n tulkinta perusteltu

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on päättänyt jättää tutkittavaksi ottamatta valituksen, jossa ns. Jippii-jutussa lopulta kokonaan syytteistä vapautetut johtajat väittivät, että Korkein oikeus olisi rikkonut reformatio in peius-kieltoa, kun se katsoi asiassa KKO 2011:109, että vastaajien ylimääräisen muutoksenhaun seurauksena palautettu juttu voitiin tutkia myös siltä osin, kun syytteet oli aikaisemmin lainvoimaisesti hylätty.

EIT:n päätöksestä:

26.  Turning
to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that the
applicants’ complaint relates to their inability to benefit from the
prohibition of reformatio in peius
in the reopened proceedings which had been commenced due to the fact
that the Supreme Court had found, on the basis of the applicants’
application, a procedural error in the ordinary proceedings and referred
the case back to the Appeal Court for a new examination. The applicants
claimed that the prohibition of reformatio in peius was applicable and that, relying on this principle, their case could not have been re‑examined again in its entirety, even if the Appeal Court judgment of 28 May 2009 had been annulled and referred back in its entirety by the Supreme Court on 1 November 2010 (see paragraph 12), as the former judgment had been partly favourable to them.

27.  As
stated above, the domestic courts are in a better position to interpret
domestic legislation, in particular laws relating to procedural
matters, as in the present case. The Court takes note of the fact that
the applicants’ allegations were thoroughly examined by the domestic
courts at two levels of jurisdiction and that, in its judgment of 29 December 2011, the Supreme Court explicitly found that all
partiality grounds were unconditional, that the lack of competence of
the composition in the present case had concerned the whole Appeal Court
proceedings and the judgment in its entirety, and that therefore the
court had earlier annulled the Appeal Court judgment of 28 May 2009 in
its entirety. The Supreme Court considered that, as the prohibition of reformatio in peius only
applied to judgments which had become partially final, it did not apply
to the present case in which a final judgment had been completely
annulled. The Court notes that it cannot
substitute its own view for that of the domestic courts’ findings in
this specific case. The Court finds that the applicants were able to
submit their arguments to the domestic courts, which addressed those
arguments in judgments which were duly reasoned and disclosed no
elements of arbitrariness (see Alkes v. Turkey (no. 2), cited above, § 21).

28.  In the light of the above, the Court finds that the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 of the Convention must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded and declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

Koko päätös löytyy täältä: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-155877